I disagree. I see a lot of clammoring for better graphics, and honestly, I think the big gaming companies are still fighting to deliver. If you want to talk indies, maybe, but even then.MammothBlade said:
Can Graphics get much better?
- Thread starter maconlon439
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, they can come up with better graphics, but right now, I don't care. I'm pretty content with the graphics in most games. I just wish they approve the aesthetics. To me, Journey has the best graphics I've played this year, and I'd rather look at it rather than whatever is trying to sell the latest graphics card. If developers just want a new system to make things prettier, that just seems really lazy to me.
I'll give you complete immersion, 100m underwater chained to a pixellated cinder block...Zachary Amaranth said:
I haven't noticed much of a change in graphics over the past few years. Can't tell a 2009 game from one released in 2012. Perhaps that's because graphics hit a plateau with the current generation of consoles. I don't want this to become a PC vs. console thing, that's just how the system works at the moment.Zachary Amaranth said:
Games companies shouldn't prolapse themselves trying to deliver "next-gen" graphics.
Of course, I find it unlikely we're going to see any massive jumps like snes to 64/ps1 aside from when the holodeck is possible, but we're still moving forward. On the topic though, I would really like to mention the cinematics in Halo 4(the pre rendered ones that is, although it does look gorgeous), if you haven't watched it, do it, even if you're not a Halo fan, just watch it for the sheer graphical fidelity.
Spoilers for the Spartan Ops campaign here obviously.
343 have seriously done well here, don't look too closely and it does almost look real, especially the scenes with Hallsey and the non battle scenes. A fuck ton of detail, great facial expressions and lighting, the hair, and they've managed to avoid the uncanny valley to boot.
In game, if they can do what the real time graphics can achieve with a 360, I would love to see what they could do with a top end gaming PC.
Spoilers for the Spartan Ops campaign here obviously.
343 have seriously done well here, don't look too closely and it does almost look real, especially the scenes with Hallsey and the non battle scenes. A fuck ton of detail, great facial expressions and lighting, the hair, and they've managed to avoid the uncanny valley to boot.
In game, if they can do what the real time graphics can achieve with a 360, I would love to see what they could do with a top end gaming PC.
I agree. I loved Mario, but it never made my jaw drop like current gen consoles.Chester Rabbit said:
Edit: ^^ Halo 4 cut-scenes are the latest to blow my mind.
I think games do have room to expand on graphics. When do we get realistic hair, fur, and body kinematics?
I'm not looking for "photorealism" - that sort of stuff gives me headaches, and there are too many distortions. I wish we could get "looking through a window"-type graphics instead. Photo-realism is an oxymoron.
However, best advances would definitely be in lighting capabilities... unless we get something that can automatically create fully-detailed organic movements and shapes.
I'm not looking for "photorealism" - that sort of stuff gives me headaches, and there are too many distortions. I wish we could get "looking through a window"-type graphics instead. Photo-realism is an oxymoron.
However, best advances would definitely be in lighting capabilities... unless we get something that can automatically create fully-detailed organic movements and shapes.
Graphics will always be able to improve. There will always be something to improve in, whether or not it's draw distance, Anti-aliasing, texture quality, volumetric lighting, ect, ect.
But we'll reach a point where we can continue improving graphics, but there's simply no point. A higher amount of work will yield no visible difference than something done on the cheap at this future point. At that point, it'll only become easier and easier to render that level as technology become more efficient. Then maybe games could improve in other aspects, like writing quality, or overall game quality...
But we'll reach a point where we can continue improving graphics, but there's simply no point. A higher amount of work will yield no visible difference than something done on the cheap at this future point. At that point, it'll only become easier and easier to render that level as technology become more efficient. Then maybe games could improve in other aspects, like writing quality, or overall game quality...
Stainlesssteele4 said:
Depends, can you get realer than real?
No seriously, can you?
what would that look like?
They CAN and they WILL.
But I could care less about graphics other then the style, much like the style of any painting.
But I could care less about graphics other then the style, much like the style of any painting.
Graphics can improve immensely. They will continue to improve over time. I think the uncanny valley can be conquered and photorealism can be achieved without being 100% indistinguishable.
The push for higher graphic fidelity is good, as it allows not only more realistic looking graphics and provides a greater canvas for the more artistic games to render with. Highly artistic games tend to be the ones pushing video processing the least, but if a developer had the resources to be artsy with a top of the line card or chip-set to afford bigger production, I think the outcome could be truly wonderful.
The push for higher graphic fidelity is good, as it allows not only more realistic looking graphics and provides a greater canvas for the more artistic games to render with. Highly artistic games tend to be the ones pushing video processing the least, but if a developer had the resources to be artsy with a top of the line card or chip-set to afford bigger production, I think the outcome could be truly wonderful.
exactly this.StriderShinryu said:
while i love and am grateful for the graphics now, until we get in-game graphics on this level:
i won't be fully satisfied, that would be immersive as fuck to have graphics constantly at that level.
Of course they can get better! For instance I'd like every game to have facial animation at least as good as L.A. Noire, but with better body animation. Also games need better A.I., so NPC would react more realistically. Also, please, better textures! Textures in this gen mostly suck, thanks to a long console cycle. Give us raytracing, better draw dintances, no loading times...
All those things would help games to look much better.
All those things would help games to look much better.
Pretty sure Crysis 3 combines everything you just saidpilouuuu said:
Watch @ 1080p
Well ok maybe not ray tracing, because that shit is impossible to render in real-time with current technology. Graphics cards and processors will need to get at least 10-15x faster than the fastest stuff today to pull off even the most basic ray tracing in real-time, let alone making it PLAYABLE.
But once we CAN pull it off, we will see stuff like this:
Just a glimpse of what ray tracing can pull off!
So can graphics get any better? HELL YES!
I'd rather see physics engines get better, things like air current engines or fully realized water engines would be amazing little bonuses to add to any game. There's a first person shooter out there that runs in a totally physics based environment, I want something like that only with quality graphics as well.
Also, not to be too much of a goremonger but I feel like location damage systems should get absurd. I want internal organs rendered, I want proper blood amounts based on the location and size of the wound. Not because I'm a sick bastard, and trust me, I am, but more because it would add a layer and weight to the game.
Also, not to be too much of a goremonger but I feel like location damage systems should get absurd. I want internal organs rendered, I want proper blood amounts based on the location and size of the wound. Not because I'm a sick bastard, and trust me, I am, but more because it would add a layer and weight to the game.
Of course they could be better, but I think the real question is "should they get better?" I'd personally rather have game developers spend more time on improving the mechanics, narrative, aesthetics, and technical performance of their games over the graphical fidelity, because those are the things that actually make games enjoyable. I don't mind developers pushing for higher-fidelity graphics if they want, but I don't like it when it comes at the cost of games that are shorter, shallower, and more expensive to make, which is what we see happening to AAA games right now. Besides, games don't need photo-realistic graphics to look good; Okami is a game that beats most recent games into the dust in terms of sheer jaw-dropping beauty, just by virtue of its art style. Okami also had a shit-ton more content and depth than most recent AAA games despite being built on older technology, so what the hell have developers been doing lately? Better technology should be a way to add more to games, not something that makes it more expensive to do the things we've already done.
Thats...kinda the point though?SoranMBane said:
At the moment game budgets are terrible because game developers want to make their games beautiful, but have to spend twice to three times as much effort to get to that point. There was an article talkin about how Bioware had to make their characters look so realistic. They made a low poly model at first, then made a hi poly model and layered it on top of the low poly model. They then had to make sure the two models worked together in every single animation that was used.
The new graphics engines comin out (they've been posted already in this thread), and new technology to run said engines that wont be a factor anymore. Devs wont need to use the same retarded work arounds that cost them developer time and money and instead be able to just do it. In fact, the new Unreal engines entire purpose, outside of allowin devs to do more and more things, is to do those things as easily as possible. One of the examples they talked about was stuff like...sun lightin I believe? Now they have to make a sun, then work out how the sun interacts with objects, then they have to create the dynamic lightnin and blah blah blah. With the new Unreal engine they hit a button to make a sun and all the stuff after just happens.
Does this even need asking?
From your comment, you have only looked at consoles and asked if graphics can get better.
Point one: They already have compared to that, and by a fair amount. Go on a PC, and there is a massive jump in how games look - assuming the game was designed to look great on the PC, unlike most games released these days.
Beyond that, graphics exist at a near 'perfect' level in expensive CGI rendering that is not possible in real time ATM. Get to the photorealistic stage rendered in real time at 60+ FPS, and then there might be an argument as to whether or not they could get better.
As is, graphics are laughably terrible compared to what is possible. You look at a screenshot of a game and it takes you less than an instant to decide whether its real life or pre-rendered. Textures are too low res and don't have enough detail, models use low poly counts so they're able to be rendered on consoles and miss out on things such as wrinkles in someone's clothes thanks to this, hair is just a blob with lines painted on it, and its rare that it even reacts to physics like real hair, almost nothing has a unique shape - it is instead just a copy of something else in that scene.
Can graphics get any better?
Easily. When you get to the point of looking at your screen and being able to be forgiven for thinking that it was just a glass pane, and instead of your wall behind it there was a portal to anther world only visible from one side, that is when this question should be asked. Until then, yes, graphics can get better, and they likely will.
From your comment, you have only looked at consoles and asked if graphics can get better.
Point one: They already have compared to that, and by a fair amount. Go on a PC, and there is a massive jump in how games look - assuming the game was designed to look great on the PC, unlike most games released these days.
Beyond that, graphics exist at a near 'perfect' level in expensive CGI rendering that is not possible in real time ATM. Get to the photorealistic stage rendered in real time at 60+ FPS, and then there might be an argument as to whether or not they could get better.
As is, graphics are laughably terrible compared to what is possible. You look at a screenshot of a game and it takes you less than an instant to decide whether its real life or pre-rendered. Textures are too low res and don't have enough detail, models use low poly counts so they're able to be rendered on consoles and miss out on things such as wrinkles in someone's clothes thanks to this, hair is just a blob with lines painted on it, and its rare that it even reacts to physics like real hair, almost nothing has a unique shape - it is instead just a copy of something else in that scene.
Can graphics get any better?
Easily. When you get to the point of looking at your screen and being able to be forgiven for thinking that it was just a glass pane, and instead of your wall behind it there was a portal to anther world only visible from one side, that is when this question should be asked. Until then, yes, graphics can get better, and they likely will.
It always has to be one or the other, doesn't it? It's not like the same people are even responsible for graphics/aesthetics and actual content like gameplay and story. Of course graphics take a bite of the budget of everything else, but still...Reaper195 said:
I think console games either look like ass or run at framerates that can be barely classed as moving image so the next gen can't come soon enough.
Maybe, maybe not. Although I seriously doubt it. The question I really have to ask is do they need to?